Grand Jury SLAMS Pirro’s Indictment Ploy

Grand jury delivers stinging rebuke to Trump ally Jeanine Pirro’s rushed bid to indict six Democratic lawmakers over a patriotic video upholding military oaths.

Story Snapshot

U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro abruptly pushed for indictments in late January 2026, only for grand jury to unanimously reject the case days later.
The probe targeted veteran lawmakers for a video reminding troops to refuse illegal orders, echoing core constitutional principles of lawful obedience.
Pirro shelved the case amid backlash, highlighting grand jury’s vital role as check against politicized prosecutions.
House Democrats demand documents and ethics probe, escalating oversight on DOJ actions.
Repeated failures in Pirro’s office signal challenges in pursuing genuine justice over political targets.

Timeline of the Failed Indictment Push

Six Democratic lawmakers with military and intelligence backgrounds released a social media video in mid-November 2025. The video responded to President Trump’s rhetoric about domestic “enemies within” facing “treason punishable by death.” It simply restated longstanding U.S. military law requiring service members to refuse illegal orders. FBI counterterrorism division notified the lawmakers of interviews on November 25, 2025. The inquiry lingered without urgency through mid-January 2026, as prosecutors contacted defense attorneys without citing specific statutes violated.

Pirro’s Abrupt Shift and Grand Jury Rejection

In late January 2026, U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro, a longtime Trump supporter and former Fox host, suddenly directed her team to seek indictments. Handpicked prosecutors Steven Vandervelden and Carlton Davis presented the case to a D.C. grand jury during the week of February 10-14. Despite prosecutorial advantages, the grand jury unanimously rejected the indictments—a rare outcome underscoring the case’s weakness. Pirro’s office shelved the matter by February 16-17 amid internal reservations and public scrutiny. This unusual speed, from low priority to collapse in weeks, contrasts sharply with typical cases taking months.

Stakeholders and Political Motivations Exposed

Pirro, appointed in Trump’s second term under AG Pam Bondi, aimed to advance an agenda against perceived opponents. The targeted lawmakers—Sens. Elissa Slotkin (MI), Mark Kelly (AZ), and Reps. Jason Crow (CO), Maggie Goodlander (NH), Chrissy Houlahan (PA), Chris Deluzio (PA)—are all veterans defending free speech and military oaths central to American service. House Democrats, including Reps. Garcia and Raskin, fired off a February 19 letter demanding documents and referring Pirro’s team to DOJ’s Office of Professional Responsibility. White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson defended Pirro’s law-and-order focus, while critics highlighted bypassed career prosecutors.

Pirro’s office has faced prior grand jury rejections on hyper-political charges, including probes of ex-officials like Miles Taylor and Christopher Krebs. This pattern raises concerns about resource waste on weak cases, diverting from real threats like border security and crime. Conservatives value prosecutorial discretion but demand it targets actual lawbreakers, not patriots upholding constitutional duty. The grand jury’s independence here protects against government overreach, a bedrock conservative principle.

Implications for Trump DOJ and Justice System

The rejection erodes Pirro’s credibility and strains a DOJ already criticized for staff shortages and judicial rebukes. Short-term, it fuels partisan battles; long-term, it affirms grand juries as safeguards against abuse. Taxpayer dollars funded this flop, echoing frustrations with inefficient federal spending. Experts note the “stunning” unanimity signals public distrust in politicized pursuits. While Trump’s agenda strengthens America First priorities, such misfires risk undermining public faith in impartial justice—essential for conservative goals of limited, effective government.